Affirmative Action In South Africa

CREATING DIVERSITY
14
Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, Volume 3, Number S1, 2013 © 2013 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/jpoc.21073
Affirmative Action in
South Africa
Are We Creating New Casualties?
Uduak Archibong, PhD, FWACN, FRCN, and Oluyinka Adejumo, RN, Dlitt et Phil
Affirmative action policies in South Africa and other countries have been
designed to address inequity and discrimination, and to manage a wide range
of diversity in all spheres of life, particularly after the end of apartheid in 1994.
Years after implementing affirmative action in South Africa, perceptions of its
impact or even benefit seem to vary from person to person. This article pres-
ents the findings from a study utilizing different data sources including docu-
ment review, interviews, and a consensus workshop on the perceptions of
the impact of affirmative action in South Africa. It is part of a larger European
Commission–funded comparative study of positive action measures across
countries in North America, the European Union, and South Africa. Partici-
pants were drawn from different public and private organizational sectors,
racial groups, genders, age groups, and people with disabilities. The analyzed
data provided insight into how society might be perceiving and reacting to
the operation of affirmative action in South Africa.
Background
South Africa went through a formalized apartheid system of government
from 1948 until it was replaced by a democratically elected government
in 1994. Before 1994, a series of about 25 statutes (Boddy-Evans, 2008)
enacted between 1948 and 1974 institutionalized racial discrimination,
classifying the people of South Africa racially into either White, Colored,
Asian or Indian, and Black (African), in that order of importance and
allocation of benefits within the apartheid system. he legislation speci-
fied where and how the different “races” could live, travel, work, be
educated, get married, and mingle. he legacy of apartheid was deep-
rooted differential treatment of the “non-White” population of South

Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, Volume 3, Number S1 • DOI: 10.1002/jpoc 15
Africa, resulting in imbalances and inequality in
terms of type of housing, employment opportu-
nity, education, medical care, and other public
services. During the apartheid era, Black people
were not allowed to run businesses or professional
practices in areas reserved for White South Afri-
cans. Certain jobs were designated “White only,”
and Black education was specifically designed to
prepare Blacks for the laboring class. Ownership
of land was such that the Whites, about 10% of the
total population, owned more than 80% of the
land (Shepherd, 1994), and Black women experi-
enced both racial and gender discrimination. Black
women further had few or no legal rights, very
limited access to education, and generally had no
right to own property.
Affirmativeactionwasconsequentlyestablished
to redress the gender as well as racial imbalances
perceived to be the consequence of apartheid in the
country. he goal of affirmative action in South
Africa was to make sure that those formerly disad-
vantaged, also referred to as designated groups in
Section 1 of the Employment Equity Act No. 55 of
1998 (South African Government, 1998), enjoyed
the same benefits and opportunities guaranteed in
the postapartheid Constitution. he beneficiaries of
affirmative action include “Black People”—a general
term which refers to Africans, Indians, Colored
(persons of mixed-race descent), and, most recently,
ethnic Chinese; all women (White and Black; follow-
ing the High Court ruling in June 2008 (High Court
of South Africa, 2008)); people with disabilities; and
urban dwellers.
Out of the population of 44 million South
Africans from the 2001 census, 77% are indige-
nous African of whom 52% are women, 11% are
White, 9% are Colored with 3% Indian and Asian.
he Employment Equity Act (EEA) 55 (1998) and
the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment
(BB-BEE) Act (2003) and the series of
amendments thereafter provide the main legal
frameworks for the implementation of affirmative
action in South Africa.
Pre– and Post–Affirmative Action:
A Comparison
Before the enactment and execution of affirmative
action,unemploymentratesamongmenandwomen
were widely differential and disproportionate to the
“races.” he South African Institute of Race Relations
(SAIRR, 1993) statistics revealed that the majority of
domestic workers were Black women, and a majority
of those unemployed in all the race categories were
women (see Table 1). Indian, Colored, and Black
women were employed in lower-paid and menial
jobs. In specific occupations, Colored women were
not represented in the public sector. However, White
women were in better-paid jobs and enjoyed higher
status with benefits.
he South African Institute of Race Relations
(1995) statistics revealed that 3.1% of judges were
womenand9.6%ofmagistrateswerewomen.While
14% of White women had higher educational quali-
fications, only 4% of Indian women, 2% of Colored
women, and 1% of African women had
Table 1
Unemployment Statistics in South Africa Before
Affirmative Action
Unemployment Rates, 1993:
Men
Unemployment Rates, 1993:
Women
African men: 31.6% African women: 43.9%
Colored men: 21% Colored women: 26.4%
Indian men: 12.5% Indian women: 23%
White men: 5.3% White women: 12.9%
Source: South African Institute of Race Relations, 2008.

16 Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, Volume 3, Number S1 • DOI: 10.1002/jpoc
higher certificates. South African Institute of Race
Relations statistics (1996) disclosed that in the
public service 85% of senior managers were White
men,10%wereAfricanmen,2%wereWhitewomen,
and 0.6% were African and Indian women, while
there was no representation of Colored women. In
a survey conducted with 657 South African compa-
nies in 1995, 89% of senior managers were White
men, 6% were Black men, and 5% were Asian and
Indian men. Only 1.9% of directors were female
directors and only 3.14% of executives were female.
Looking at these statistics, it was presumed that
affirmative action would transform society follow-
ing the apartheid governments and bring about
equality and social justice for all in South Africa.
Specific laws are involved in addressing repre-
sentational diversity in terms of Black people,
women, and persons with disabilities in South
Africa (Ncholo, 1992). he Constitutional Act of
1993 (South African Government, 2005) presents
the foundation for gender equality, nonracialism,
and non-sexism. he Bill of Rights enshrined
inChapter2oftheConstitutionguaranteesfreedom
from discrimination on the grounds of age, belief,
birth, color, conscience, culture, disability, ethnic or
social origin, gender, language, pregnancy, marital
status, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation.
EEA No. 55 of 1998 was passed by Parliament
on August 21, 1998, to address disparities in access
to jobs, skills, and education (South African Gov-
ernment, 1998). he Code of Good Practices on
key aspects of HIV/AIDS was added to the EEA
on December 1, 2000, because of the public health
challenge related to HIV/AIDS in regard to human
rights and employment as well as employee mor-
tality rates (South Africa Department of Labour,
2000). he EEA was amended in May 2006 and
published as the Employment Equity Regulation
of August 18, 2006, in order to improve the report-
ing of companies and small businesses regarding
the implementation of affirmative action as
required by law (Department of Labour, Republic
of South Africa, 2006). Companies and small busi-
nesses are required to report annually and bian-
nually; with the new regulation, regular reporting
now takes place quarterly. he regulation further
clarified additional criteria for the eligibility of
individuals in designated groups:
• Citizenship of the Republic of South
Africa by birth or descent, or
• CitizenshipoftheRepublicofSouthAfrica
by naturalization before the commence-
ment date of the Constitution of the
Republic of South Africa Act of 1993, or
• CitizenshipoftheRepublicofSouthAfrica
after the commencement date of the Con-
stitution of the Republic of South Africa
Act of 1993, but entitled to citizenship by
naturalization prior to the commence-
ment date of the Constitution in 1993.
Other legislation enacted to support the
implementation of affirmative action policies
include the controversial BB-BEE Act of 2003. he
BB-BEE was initiated by government to redress
the country’s historic inequalities by helping those
previously disadvantaged to commence their own
trade or become part of existing businesses. Eco-
nomic empowerment in businesses has been pro-
moted across the country through transformation
charters and codes of good practice. However, the
application of BB-BEE has been criticized as ben-
efiting the Black elite, while the majority of the
Black population is yet to tap into and realize the
opportunities available within BB-BEE.
he policy of affirmative action is applauded
for recognizing disadvantaged groups, but its
implementation has been criticized for giving
preferential treatment to “non-White” at the

expense of White people (Roberts, Weir-Smith, &
Reddy, 2010). he African population has bene-
fited the most from affirmative action in contrast
to other racial groups categorized as Black. Critics
see affirmative action as reverse discrimination
and racism, without a specified time frame for the
discontinuance of the policy (Modisha, 2007). his
study, as part of a bigger comparative study of
affirmative action in Europe, the United States,
and South Africa, presents the findings on affir-
mative action in South Africa (Archibong et al.,
2009). he focus of this article is on the views of
study participants at the consensus workshops
and interviews concerning their understanding of
affirmative action, their ideas on the impetus for
affirmative action, their view of the effectiveness
of affirmative action, their thoughts on the impact
of affirmative action, and their recommendations
to make affirmative action work.
Methods
his study adopted a consensus workshop method
to bring together the knowledge, understanding, and
experiences of all stakeholders to provide the best
possible outcomes and decisions concerning the
contextofaffirmativeactionactivitiesinSouthAfrica
(Spencer, 1989; Stanfield, 2002). he consensus
workshop in South Africa was held following a series
of flyers and invitations sent to identified people
from various sectors, including public and private
organizations and government and nongovernmen-
tal bodies. Specifically targeted were managers as
well as those involved in human resource manage-
ment and policy makers in health, education, social
welfare, labor, business and finance industry sectors
in South Africa. he workshop was held in Johan-
nesburg, as it was considered central for travel pur-
poses from different parts of the country. Sixteen
people took part in the consensus workshop.
hemes extracted from workshops were
further validated by follow-on individual face-to-
face or telephone interviews with workshop partici-
pants willing to discuss their views in more detail
and those who did not attend the workshop but
wished to contribute to the study. he interviews
covered mostly context-specific questions. A total
of 10 in-depth interviews were conducted. Most
interviews were audiotaped and lasted approxi-
mately 30 to 60 minutes. he interviews were semi-
structured in nature using an interview guide to aid
guided conversations (Fielding & homas, 2008).
he interview guide was developed, piloted, and
modified in response to the feedback received and
ongoing research team discussion.
Participants
he participants were drawn from central and
provincial government establishments as well as
privateandnongovernmentalorganizations.here
was also representation from health, higher edu-
cation, farming industry, business, voluntary and
community sector organizations, and faith-based
organizations with a holistic racial representation
of South Africa. Participants included men and
women, persons with and without disabilities, and
people of different sexual orientations.
Data Collection Procedure
Before commencement of the fieldwork, the
research team obtained ethics approval to ensure
that the study complied with the Data Protection
Act (1998) and satisfied the Institutional Code of
Research Ethics. All participants were asked to sign
a voluntary consent to participate and to be inter-
viewed if necessary with clear options to opt out if
need be. Participants were assured of anonymity in
reporting and that no name of the person or orga-
nizational affiliation would be linked directly to any
report emanating from the discussions.

Participants were divided into two groups,
with three facilitators per group. One facilitator led
the discussion, while the other two did the verbatim
recording of the discussions and extracting of key
points or concepts for further discussion and agree-
ment with the participants respectively. he facili-
tators in each group enabled and directed the
process and jointly intensified dialogue whenever
necessary. hese activities were rehearsed in a brief-
ing session for all the assigned facilitators. he
workshop followed five steps: setting the scene,
generating new ideas, putting the ideas into clus-
ters, labeling the clusters, and symbolizing the
resolve. Four focus questions were used to inform
the workshop discussions.
he two groups came together after approxi-
mately 90 minutes of consensus discussions for a
plenary session to share what transpired in the
groups and to further reach consensus on the
ideas generated in the different groups. Key state-
ments that emerged from both groups were put
up for members to read and to confirm agreement
through use of tokens to indicate the extent to
which they agreed with the key statements.
Ten workshop participants agreed to be inter-
viewedforfurtherinformationonaffirmativeaction
measures in their various organizations. hese vol-
unteers provided telephone numbers and suitable
time for follow-up contacts after the workshop. he
reports from these interviews form part of the find-
ings reported in the Findings section.
Data Analysis
Data gathered from the consensus workshop were
analyzed on the spot, with all the participants
making input into the authenticity of the drawn
conclusions from the extracted concepts. he data
collected from the consensus workshop and inter-
views were analyzed systematically around the
identified themes using a framework approach to
qualitative data analysis (Silverman, 2001; Smith
& Firth, 2011).
Findings
Understanding of the Term Affirmative Action
Participants generally understood the term affir-
mative action to mean affirming and promoting
equal opportunities for people to empower them so
as to have full engagement in the society. heir
understanding includes interpreting affirmative
action as development of previously disadvantaged
individuals through systematic inclusion in the
society through various efforts directed at correct-
ing the disadvantage. To the participants, it is fair
discrimination, as opposed to unfair discrimina-
tion. However, through the various ways that the
participants have experienced affirmative action, it
might also mean window dressing, disempower-
ment of certain categories of people in the popula-
tion, exclusion, and a whole lot of backlash if applied
inappropriately (see Table 2). he explanations of
the keywords in the table were either verbalized or
written on the cards provided to the participants.
Impetus for Affirmative Action
To the participants, legal obligation and a quest to
adhere to laws appears to be a major driver of affir-
mative action, although participants further agreed
that organizational core values, including justice,
fairness, inclusiveness, emancipation, progress, and
wealth, do drive the process. Favoritism and dis-
crimination, agitation from the grassroots, political
motives, and need for wealth are other factors seen
as the impetus for affirmative action. Other partici-
pants viewed corporate social responsibility as the
basis for designing affirmative action, including
empowerment, stability, and skill development of
disadvantaged groups. hey expressed the desire to
develop and empower people as an obligation of a

Table 2
Keywords or Terminologies Used by Participants to Describe Affirmative Action with Sample Statements
Keywords or Terminologies Used by Participants Representative Statements
Affirming people A person must understand the true value of himself. We have a ... who has been working with us,
... able, and responsible; we have helped him open his own business ... I am not affirmed in the
business, they say I am young. I feel that I will always be young and need to be affirmed.
Ensuring that everyone who has been put down is raised.
Correction of disadvantage/corrective measure Designed to right the disparities of the past with regard to race, disability, and gender inequalities.
Disempowerment of a category Means disempowering men.
Empowerment of a category Empowerment of women.
Equal opportunity, equality, equity Affirmative action is not unfair discrimination; it is about equal opportunities; in my organization, I
was the first person who was physically disabled but now we have a deaf ... and even about age.
It does not mean that if a person is above a particular age must be told to go.
Equality in opportunities for all races and genders and a balance in educational opportunities,
therefore job opportunities.
Exclusion It also means excluding some people.
Fair discrimination This is no unfair discrimination; it is about equal opportunities.
Justice Issues of justice are also addressed.
Provision of opportunity Allows previously disadvantaged group to take advantage of new opportunities; is designed to
allow the previously disadvantaged people to be given better position at workplace based on their
qualifications.
Reaction to a precondition of disadvantage Consideration of previously disadvantaged individual.
Recognition of competence During apartheid, our families had low bracket earnings, but they managed to walk to school.
When you get to the workplace, you work hard and not recognized, but with the introduction of
affirmative action, people are beginning to be recognized.
Redress inequities Measures taken to redress present and past inequities/imbalances in a particular society; address
disparities of the past.
Systematic inclusion Recognizing previously disadvantaged individuals and systematically including them into the
mainstream business activity.
Training and skill development Affirmative action goes together with training and development ... we have been trained in order
to be affirmed but on the basis of your skills.
Uplifting designated group Affirmative action in my organization means uplifting the disadvantaged groups to a better standard
or position in an organization.
Uplift the designated groups, upgrade disadvantaged groups.
Window dressing Reaching employment target without a principle to establish that there is a precondition for
disadvantage. Is there a minimum or a maximum disadvantage instead of trying to achieve targets
in terms of number? There should not be a blanket disadvantage.

socially responsible institution; corporate core
values, “everybody must feel as if they are empow-
ered.” It was felt that dynamics of affirmative action
need to be considered to understand the drivers, as
one participant explained:
here are positive and negative dynamics
emotions that drive affirmative action. A
negative driver is the greed and self interest
of some people behind it, the desire to
achieve at the expense of others: e.g., the
desire to be wealthy. Wealth is a negative
driving force. Self-interest to me is nega-
tive, with a lot of emotions, hate, feeling of
revenge, anger, payback feelings. hese are
all negative, but they are the drivers. Affir-
mative action to some people is not guided
by principle, but emotions rather than
reasoning.
It was reiterated that government policies
provide the best attempt to introduce affirmative
action to each and every company in South Africa.
In this case, affirmative action was seen to be
driven by people in key leadership positions (e.g.,
politicians, legislators, and policy makers), who
have the will or resolve for change and have the
will to monitor to achieve positive results.
Effectiveness of Affirmative Action
Responding to whether affirmative action has
been effective or not in South Africa, participants’
key statements indicated a belief that affirmative
action is effective only in terms of meeting numer-
ical targets as quality has not been emphasized in
the implementation. While some participants
believed that the government was trying and
appeared to be addressing some of the dynamics
of the past, this was seen not to be effective enough.
hey were, however, of the opinion that there had
been some form of “paradigm shift from how
things used to be in the past.” Reasons advanced
for why affirmative action had not been effective
enough included “stereotyping, corruption, nepo-
tism, favouritism and lack of monitoring, as well
as sabotage by previous beneficiaries [of apart-
heid].” here was also a feeling that affirmative
action has not been effective because previously
“disadvantaged people were not well equipped to
take up new challenges, as the process allows
unqualified people to hold key positions based on
gender and race.” One other reason why affirma-
tive action was said not to be working was that it
led to “brain drain,” while some minority groups
were still disadvantaged. Participants detailed
examples of these success stories:
People of color now hold key positions and
women have been mainstreamed into the
workforce.
Policies have changed to accommodate
women who are competing for posi-
tions; it’s been effective in stopping
discrimination.
he company’s employment policy has
changed to accommodate women; posi-
tions previously occupied predominantly
by male have changed and now women are
competing for those promotions. Now
management positions are also being occu-
pied by people of color.
A few participants felt that although affirma-
tive action had been successful in some instances,
it seemed more focused on short-term initiatives
and about quantity and targets (i.e., correct
numbers, gender, race, empowerment of individu-
als). One respondent said:
Yes, but only 30% effectiveness because of
the manipulation of implementers and

nepotism; only about 30% of our procure-
ment in rand value is from genuinely
previously disadvantaged individuals or
business.
Some participants viewed affirmative action
as ineffective because “people living with disability
are heavily marginalised; there is stereotyping,
corruption, nepotism, lack of monitoring, favou-
ritism, and the top has not changed.” hese par-
ticipants felt that they were not properly consulted
before affirmative action was introduced. hey
described affirmative action as driving “away
White colleagues who are afraid of competitions,
so because of incompetence they decided to leave
companies.”
Others described affirmative action as neo-
apartheid, comparing the consequences of affir-
mative action in this way:
Affirmative action leaves casualties behind;
with bitterness; and disaffected people
working against affirmative action. Apart-
heid brought some casualties, this led to
affirmative action, and affirmative action is
also leaving casualties behind. It is like
going in circles.
Some people are discriminated against as
a result of affirmative action without nec-
essarily being aware of it, because they
don’t have access to the information.
It was felt that for affirmative action to be
effective, there needs to be commitment at the
top. More education is needed especially at the
top management to avoid abuse of the system.
Impact of Affirmative Action
he impact of affirmative action was viewed in
terms of people targeted and benefiting or not
benefiting from affirmative action. here was con-
sensus on the groups not targeted in the South
Africa’s affirmative action. hese were identified
as gay people, transgendered people, hardworking
White men, religious groups, and age groups who
are not benefiting from affirmative action. Groups
targeted but not benefiting from affirmative action
were identified as people living with disability, as
they are still underrepresented in the South
African working population. Participants agreed
that the groups that were targeted and are benefit-
ing the most include women across the board,
Black men, “the kingmakers,” further described by
the participants as the “dynasties”; people who
share similar languages, and people who work in
historically White institutions. hose with politi-
cal affiliations or families of those in management
were also seen in these lights:
hat black women have been given oppor-
tunities to empower themselves.
Productivity [has] increased and reporting
structures improved.
Whites don’t benefit as much as other
groups from affirmative action, therefore
encounter the process, sabotage success;
hard working White men, competent youth
members. SMMEs [small, micro and
medium sized enterprise] by Blacks and
Whites, gay people.
Not benefitting are societies in the rural
areas, disadvantaged, disabled groups,
poor low socio-economic groups; those
who are not linked with high placed man-
agers or not befriended with them. Also
some of those who do not support the
ruling party, those who were working for
the previous dispensation.

Measures to Make Affirmative Action Work
Participants came up with a number of recom-
mendations that they felt would make affirmative
action work. hese included making the targeted
population clearly aware of the advantages of affir-
mative action by the management team. his
should be achieved through continued sensitiza-
tion. Implementers were urged to deemphasize
statistics and integrate quality of skills develop-
ment rather than concentrating on quantity.
Honest and truthful dialogue was viewed to be
essential by all persons involved in the process and
implementation of affirmative action. Intervention
of affirmative action was deemed to be timely, and
government should put in place measures that
would address poverty and turn the brain drain
agenda into circulation of knowledge and ex-
pertise where people’s services are remunerated.
Participants also recommended proactive identi-
fication and the management of backlash from
affirmative action. It is expected that the govern-
ment would consider sustainability and introduce
this into affirmative action, because, according to
the participants, sustainability must be part of the
process. More specific recommendations are
shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Recommended Measures by Participants to Make Affirmative Action Work
Categories of Recommendation Recommended Measures
Communication and awareness of target In any company, just keep awareness about where you are going to. Even in the big
companies if people do not know where we are going, keep on reminding groups of where
we are going.
Clear awareness to target the advantages of affirmative action by operatives or
management, achieved by continued sensitization.
Honest communication I think honest, honest and completely truthful dialogues, where you say what you mean so
that people should not think that this is what you say.
Honest and truthful dialogue by all persons involved, on the processes and implementation
of affirmative action.
Based on skills and competence Affirmative action should include measurement of people skills and measure competencies.
It should have to do with performance of individuals.
Sustainability Sustainability needs to be introduced into affirmative action; sustainability must be part of
the process.
Quality and not just quantity Deemphasise statistics and integrate quality of able skills than concentrating on quantity.
Proactive management of unintended
negative effect of affirmative action
Intervention of affirmative action is proactive and government should put in place measures
to deal with instances of marginalization when they occur.
Address poverty and turn the brain drain agenda into circulation of knowledge and
expertise where one’s services are remunerated.
Plan for sustainability of positive effect of
affirmative action
Sustainability of affirmative action policy: positive action versus affirmative discrimination
should be considered for the future of the policy in South Africa.

Discussion and Conclusions
Buoyed by the provisions of the new Constitution
and a series of acts and regulations formulated
after 1994, affirmative action in South Africa
emerged immediately after the dismantling of
apartheid government in 1994. Affirmative action
was one of several measures to address the sys-
tematic inequities brought about by racial seg-
regation and unfair discrimination and treatment
of women and people of color during the apart-
heid regime. According to Dhami, Squires, and
Mohood (2006), affirmative action programs com-
monly are designed to tackle a series of inequali-
ties, mainly focusing on minority groups (such as
castes in India) but also focusing on specific major-
ity groups (such as racial groups in South Africa).
he type of group targeted is determined by the
nature of discrimination and segregation in each
society.
Participants’ understanding of affirmative
action varies but is more directed toward provi-
sion of equal opportunities for those who may
have been disadvantaged as a result of the apart-
heid system of government. Affirmative action
was understood to be a way to correct and arrest
the imbalances that existed before 1994. To the
participants, it meant development of skills and
recognition of competence in the designated
groups of women, people with disabilities, Black
Africans, colored, and people of Asian descent
who are South African citizens. hese views reso-
nate with the advocates of affirmative action who
contend that it is needed to counteract ongoing
disadvantage and inequality for minorities (Darity
& Mason, 1998; Ladd, 1998; Yinger, 1998) as well
as discrimination based on past treatment that has
persevered over time that has limited the oppor-
tunities of minorities to reach their full potential
(Holzer & Neumark, 2000).
he impetus for affirmative action in South
Africa was agreed to be largely due to legislation
and the incentive that the beneficiaries will get
from the measures. Besides these responses, a
number of moral and ethical factors were identi-
fied as essential drivers. hese included emancipa-
tion, fairness, justice, inclusiveness, and grassroots
agitations as the drivers for affirmative action. In
contrast to a sense of commitment on the part of
the operatives of affirmative action, participants
also believed that other positive and negative
dynamics, including emotions, politics, greed,
favoritism, and nepotism, drive the process. It is
worthy to note the caution expressed by homas
and Jain (2004) in their report, which insists on
employment equity being viewed from both
micro- and macroperspectives with the real chal-
lenge of moving beyond legal compliance to ensure
that management commitment to the holistic
development of both individual and organizational
cultures is free of historical discrimination.
Effectiveness of affirmative action was seen to
be relative, as its objectives cannot be said to have
been achieved in South Africa. Contrary to other
studies (e.g., Dainty, Neale, & Bagilhole, 1999),
which view affirmative action initiatives as being
“successful” when they have led to increased
minority group recruitment, participants see the
emphasis on numbers and proportionate repre-
sentation at all levels and in all works of life to be
a drawback of the effectiveness of affirmative
action. Participants were of the opinion that
quality should be a vital component, requiring
that skills development and mentoring must be
put in place to make affirmative action effective.
Specifically, it was said that affirmative action had
not been effective in providing opportunities for
those living with disabilities and not enough
women have been empowered and broken through
the ranks that were generally reserved for men.

his confirms the findings of Mathur-Helm’s
(2005) study, which showed that despite affirma-
tive action, South African women continued to
face barriers in career advancement due to patri-
archal dominance in organizations, which pre-
vented women from rising to senior and executive
management levels.
Although affirmative action may have affected
the lives of South Africans, participants believed
that the impact has not filtered down to the grass-
roots. Rather, the implementation of affirmative
action was deemed to be full of negative stereo-
types, stigmatization, lack of proper oversight, and
malpractice. Politicians, people who are con-
nected, the dynasties (a system of leadership based
on family lineage), and relatives of powerful people
are still deemed to be the main beneficiaries of
affirmative action. he perception that beneficia-
ries of affirmative action in South Africa may be
unqualified reflects the controversy that surrounds
the predictive value of credentials in comparison
with actual performance discussed by the inter-
viewees in Dhami et al.’s (2006) study. Holzer and
Neumark (2000) suggest that whereas it is much
easier to point to shortfalls in credentials, it is
harder to measure actual performance.
here was the feeling among some partici-
pants that affirmative action might be turning to
a form of reverse discrimination and racism, as
it gave preferential treatment to minorities at
the expense of White people. his is similar to
responses from interviews with scholars and prac-
titioners of affirmative action in the United States
and Canada (Dhami et al., 2006) confirming that
perceptions of reverse discrimination, resistance,
and backlash remain key problems with the imple-
mentation of affirmative action. However, Pincus
(2003) reports little support for this position and
views reverse discrimination as a social construct
utilized by critics to attack affirmative action.
Pincus argues that this discourse is a form of
modern-day prejudice perpetuated against Black
people.
A reminder of the challenges linked to affir-
mative action was captured by participants who
compared the consequences of affirmative action
with that of the apartheid system. he study high-
lights the paradoxical nature of casualties left
behind as a consequence of both systems, in which
the very communities that faced disadvantage
during apartheid are worse off during the imple-
mentation of affirmative action. his development
of a political backlash toward affirmative action
can produce inherent support and justification for
oppressive and discriminatory practices in the
workplaceandsocietyatlarge(Bakan&Kobayashi,
2002) and a cycle of oppression for those already
disadvantaged.
Some of the participants might have also
believed that affirmative action was benefiting
only the Black middle class, thus widening the
divide between the rich and poor. Notwithstand-
ing this sense of discomfort, affirmative action was
seen to have improved the condition of Black men
and women. he challenge for South Africa is how
to sustain the policy of affirmative action where
many critics believe that people are appointed to
positions based on gender and race rather than on
competency.Fortunately,SouthAfricahasadopted
a parliamentary model of enacting and amending
laws that provides for opportunities to revisit and
amend laws as necessary. In regard to affirmative
action, there may be a need to modify some aspects
of the EEA to improve the implementation of poli-
cies where necessary. In particular will be those
contentious sections of the EEA which may be
seen to contradict the letters of the Constitution
of the Republic of South Africa (1993). here is a
need to revise the implementation process and
revisit the interpretations of contentious clauses

or lack of clarity in the acts and regulations. Issues
like “what constitutes unfair discrimination” must
be dealt with. Definite pronouncements must be
made on matters such as the introduction of quota
practices into the implementation of affirmative
action as a result of the clause “equitable represen-
tation of suitably qualified people from designated
groups in all occupational categories and levels.”
his study recommends that government and
key stakeholders of affirmative action policies deal
with the issues of lack of awareness of the reasons
for affirmative action and communicate with the
people who will benefit from such policy about the
rationale for the measures. In an effort to attain
positive balance, there is a need to enhance social
development in secondary and tertiary education,
to intensify the transformation of women partici-
pating actively in the workforce, and to continue
with affirmative action policy until equality is
achieved. Women and people living with disabili-
ties should be helped to attain proportionate share
of leadership and decision-making roles at all
levels.
he inclusion, representation, and participa-
tion of disadvantaged groups should not be after-
thoughts or add-ons but expected considerations
in policy design and implementation in every
organization and all sections of the South African
society. Companies and organizations should be
encouraged to document good practices as they
develop programs or implement measures to
increase the number of suitably qualified people
from the designated groups. Finally, the govern-
ment must not shy away from developing and
implementing measures to militate against the
development of another set of casualties of affir-
mative action. here is a need for policies or mea-
sures to manage the emotions of the people, and
particularly nonbeneficiaries, and to continuously
engage in debating the issue of the sunset clause
regarding when and where we draw the curtain on
affirmative action. ◆
References
Archibong, U., Darr, A., Eferakorho, J., Scally, A., Atkin,
K., Baxter, C., ... Bradshaw, P. (2009). Methodological
challenges of researching positive action measures.
International Journal of Diversity in Organisations,
Communities and Nations, 9(5), 99–110.
Bakan, A. B., & Kobayashi, A. (2002). Employment
equity legislation in Ontario: A case study in the poli-
tics of backlash. In C. Agocs (Ed.), Workplace Equality:
International perspectives on legislation, policy and
practice (pp. 91–108). London, England: Kluwer Law
International.
Boddy-Evans, A. (2008). Apartheid legislation in South
Africa. Retrieved from http://africanhistory.about
.com/library/bl/blsalaws.htm
Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment (BB-BEE)
Act. (2003). Retrieved from http://www.westerncape
.gov.za/eng/pubs/public_info/P/189909
Dainty, R. J. A., Neale, H. R., & Bagilhole, M. B. (1999).
Women’s careers in large construction companies:
expectations unfulfilled? Career Development Interna-
tional, 4(7), 353–357.
Darity, W., & Mason, P. (1998). Evidence of discrimina-
tion in employment. Journal of Economic Perspectives,
12(2), 63–90.
Data Protection Act. (1998). Retrieved from http://
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents
Department of Labour, Republic of South Africa.
(2006). Employment Equity Regulation of 18 August

2006. Retrieved from http://www.labour.gov.za
/legislation/acts/employment-equity/amendments
/amended-employment-equity-regulation-download
-in-smaller-file-sizes/
Dhami, R. S., Squires, J., & Modood, T. (2006). Devel-
oping positive action policies learning from the experi-
ences of Europe and North America. Leeds, England:
Department of Work and Pensions.
Employment Equity Act. (1998). Retrieved from http://
www.acts.co.za/emp_equity/index.htm
Fielding, N., & homas, H. (2008). Qualitiative inter-
viewing. In N. Gilbert (Ed.), Researching Social Life (pp.
245–265). London, England: Sage.
High Court of South Africa (2008). Pretoria Case
number 59251/2007. Available at http://www.workinfo.
com/Articles/174.pdf.
Holzer, H., & Neumark, D. (2000, September). Assess-
ing affirmative action. Journal of Economic Literature,
38, 483–568.
Ladd, H. (1998). Evidence of discrimination in mort-
gage lending. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(2),
41–62.
Mathur-Helm, B. (2005). Equal opportunity and affir-
mative action for South African women: A benefit
or barrier? Women in Management Review, 20(1),
56–71.
Modisha, G. (2007). Employment equity: Can it
produce a representative workforce? HSRC Review,
5(4). Retrieved from http://www.hsrc.ac.za/HSRC
_Review_Article-69.phtml
Ncholo, P. (1992). Equality and affirmative action in
constitution-making: he Southern African case. In B.
Hepple & E. Szyszczak (Eds.), Discrimination: he
limits of the law (pp. 412–432). London, England:
Mansell.
Pincus, F. L. (2003). Reverse discrimination—Disman-
tling the myth. London, England: Lynne Rienner.
Republic of South Africa. (1993). Constitution of the
Republic of South Africa. Juta Publishers. Pretoria.
Roberts, B., Weir-Smith, G., & Reddy, V. (2010). Affir-
mative action. HSRC Review, 8(3). Retrieved from
http://www.hsrc.ac.za/HSRC_Review_Article-205.
phtml
Shepherd, A. (1994). he land inequity. Africa Report,
39(1), 65, MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data:
Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction (2nd
ed.). housand Oaks, CA: Sage:
Smith, J., & Firth, J. (2011). Qualitative data analysis:
he framework approach. Nursing Research, 18(2),
52–62.
South Africa Department of Labour. (2000). Code of
Good Practice: Key aspects of HIV/AIDS and employ-
ment. Pretoria, South Africa. Retrieved from https://
www.labour.gov.za/legislation/codes-of-good-ractise
/employment-equity/code-of-good-practice-on-key
-aspects-of-hiv-aids-and-employment
South Africa Government. (1998). Employment Equity
Act No. 55 of 1998. Gazette 19370, Cape Town, South
Africa. Retrieved from https://www.labour.gov.za
/legislation/codes-of-good-ractise/employment-equity
/code-of-good-practice-on-key-aspects-of-hiv-aids
-and-employment

South Africa Government. (2005). Constitution of the
Republic of South Africa. Cape Town, South Africa:
Juta & Company.
South African Institute of Race Relations. (1993).
Unemployment statistics in South Africa. Retrieved
from http://www.SAIRR.org.za
Spencer, L. (1989). Winning through participation:
Meeting the challenge of corporate change with the tech-
nology of participation. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Stanﬁeld, R. B. (2002). he workshop book: From indi-
vidual creativity to group action (ICA series). Toronto,
Canada: Canadian Institute of Cultural Aﬀairs and
New Society.
homas, A., & Jain, H. (2004). Employment equity in
Canada and South Africa: Progress and propositions.
International Journal of Human Resources Manage-
ment, 15(1), 36–55.
Yinger, J. (1998). Evidence of discrimination in con-
sumer markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(2),
23–40.
Uduak Archibong, PhD, FWACN, FRCN, is professor of
diversity at the University of Bradford, England, where
she directs the Centre for Inclusion and Diversity and
provides strategic oversight for equality and diversity
across the institution. She holds visiting professorship
posts at the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal in South
Africa and Central University College, Miotso, in Ghana,
and she is a fellow of the West African College of
Nursing and of the Royal College of Nursing. She can
be reached at u.e.archibong@bradford.ac.uk.
Oluyinka Adejumo, RN, Dlitt et Phil., is a professor at
the School of Nursing, University of the Western Cape
in South Africa, where he is the chair of the Research
Ethics and Grants Committee in the Faculty of
Community and Health Sciences. He is involved in
studies on diversity, mental health, and health
professionals’ education. He can be reached at
oadejumo@uwc.ac.za.

Affirmative Action In South Africa

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Affirmative Action In South Africa

Similar to Affirmative Action In South Africa (20)

More from Nat Rice

More from Nat Rice (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Affirmative Action In South Africa